A method and apparatus in a distributed data processing system for handling requests. processing of requests received at a server system is monitored, wherein the server system includes a plurality of servers. A work load is estimated at each of the plurality of servers. The request is forwarded to a server within the plurality of servers having an estimated smallest work load.
|
1. A method in a distributed data processing system for handling requests, the method comprising the computer implemented steps of:
monitoring processing of requests received at a server system, wherein the server system includes a plurality of servers; determining an estimated work load for each of the plurality of servers based on a service rate for each of the plurality of servers, wherein the plurality of servers have different service rates, wherein the different service rates for the plurality of servers are fixed; and forwarding the request to a server within the plurality of servers having a smallest estimated work load, wherein the step of determining an estimated work load comprises dividing a total of service times for a server by a total of observed inter-arrival times for the server, wherein an inter-arrival time is a time period between an arrival of a request sent to the server and an arrival time of a previous request sent to the server.
9. A server system comprising:
a data transfer mechanism; a plurality of servers coupled to the data transfer system; and a network dispatcher, wherein the network dispatcher monitors processing of each request received at the server system, calculates an estimated work load for each of the plurality of servers based on a service rate for each of the plurality of servers, and forwards the request to a server within the plurality of servers having a lowest estimated amount of work to process, wherein the plurality of servers have different service rates, wherein the different service rates are fixed, and wherein the service processor calculates an estimated work load for a server within the plurality of servers by dividing a total of service times for the server by a total of observed inter-arrival times for the server, wherein an inter-arrival time is a time period between an arrival of a request sent to the server and an arrival time of a previous request sent to the server.
13. A distributed data processing system for handling requests, the distributed data processing system comprising:
monitoring means for monitoring processing of requests received at a server system, wherein the server system includes a plurality of servers; estimating means for determining an estimated work load for each of the plurality of servers based on a service rate for each of the plurality of servers; and forwarding means for forwarding the request to a server within the plurality of servers having a smallest estimated work load, wherein the plurality of servers have different service rates, wherein the different service rates for the plurality of servers are fixed, and wherein the estimating means comprises: dividing means for dividing a total of service times for a server by a total of observed inter-arrival times for the server, wherein an inter-arrival time is a time period between an arrival of a request sent to the server and an arrival time of a previous request sent to the server. 21. A computer program product in a computer readable medium for handling requests, the computer program product comprising:
first instructions for monitoring processing of requests received at a server system, wherein the server system includes a plurality of servers; second instructions for determining an estimated work load at each of the plurality of servers based on a service rate for each of the plurality of servers, wherein the plurality of servers have different service rates, wherein the different service rates for the plurality of servers are fixed; and third instructions for forwarding the request to a server within the plurality of servers having a smallest estimated work load, wherein the instructions for determining an estimated work load comprises instructions for dividing a total of service times for a server by a total of observed inter-arrival times for the server, wherein an inter-arrival time is a time period between an arrival of a request sent to the server and an arrival time of a previous request sent to the server.
8. A method in a distributed data processing system for handling requests, the method comprising the computer implemented steps of:
monitoring processing of requests received at a server system, wherein the server system includes a plurality of servers; determining an estimated work load for each of the plurality of servers based on a service rate for each of the plurality of servers, wherein the plurality of servers have different service rates, wherein the different service rates are variable; and forwarding the request to a server within the plurality of servers having a smallest estimated work load, wherein the step of determining an estimated work load includes using an equation:
wherein N is a number of requests completed by the server, A is an actual amount of work completed by the server, I is a total of observed inter-arrival times for the server, in which an inter-arrival time is a time period between an arrival of a request sent to the server and an arrival time of a previous request sent to the server, S is a total observed service rate for the server.
20. A distributed data processing system for handling requests, the distributed data processing system comprising:
monitoring means for monitoring processing of requests received at a server system, wherein the server system includes a plurality of servers; estimating means for determining an estimated work load for each of the plurality of servers based on a service rate for each of the plurality of servers; and forwarding means for forwarding the request to a server within the plurality of servers having a smallest estimated work load, wherein the plurality of servers have different service rates, wherein the different service rates are variable, and wherein the estimating means includes using an equation:
wherein N is a number of requests completed by the server, A is an actual amount of work completed by the server, I is a total of observed inter-arrival times for the server, in which an inter-arrival time is a time period between an arrival of a request sent to the server and an arrival time of a previous request sent to the server, S is a total observed service rate for the server.
12. A server system comprising:
a data transfer mechanism; a plurality of servers coupled to the data transfer system; and a network dispatcher, wherein the network dispatcher monitors processing of each request received at the server system, calculates an estimated work load for each of the plurality of servers based on a service rate for each of the plurality of servers, and forwards the request to a server within the plurality of servers having a lowest estimated amount of work to process, wherein the plurality of servers have different service rates, wherein the different service rates for the plurality of servers are variable, and wherein the service processor calculates an estimated work load for a server within the plurality of servers follows:
wherein N is a number of requests completed by the server, A is an actual amount of work completed by the server, I is a total of observed inter-arrival times for the server, in which an inter-arrival time is a time period between an arrival of a request sent to the server and an arrival time of a previous request sent to the server, S is a total observed service rate for the server.
22. A computer program product in a computer readable medium for handling requests, the computer program product comprising:
first instructions for monitoring processing of requests received at a server system, wherein the server system includes a plurality of servers; second instructions for determining an estimated work load for each of the plurality of servers based on a service rate for each of the plurality of servers, wherein the plurality of servers have different service rates, wherein the different service rates arc variable; and third instructions for forwarding the request to a server within the plurality of servers having a smallest estimated work load, wherein the instructions for determining an estimated work load includes instructions for using an equation:
wherein N is a number of requests completed by the server, A is an actual amount of work completed by the server, I is a total of observed inter-arrival times for the server, in which an inter-arrival time is a time period between an arrival of a request sent to the server and an arrival time of a previous request sent to the server, S is a total observed service rate for the server.
2. The method of
3. The method of
7. The method of
forwarding means, responsive to a subset of servers within the plurality of servers having a same estimated work load, for forwarding the request to a server within the subset having a smallest number of active requests.
10. The server system of
14. The distributed data processing system of
15. The distributed data processing system of
16. The distributed data processing system of
17. The distributed data processing system of
18. The distributed data processing system of
19. The distributed data processing system of
forwarding means, responsive to a subset of servers within the plurality of servers having a same estimated work load, for forwarding the request to a server within the subset having a smallest number of active requests.
|
1. Technical Field
The present invention relates generally to an improved distributed data processing system and in particular to the method of handling requests in a distributed data processing system. Still more particularly, the present invention relates to a method and apparatus for load balancing the requests from clients in a distributed data processing system.
2. Description of Related Art
Over the last few years, a surge in the number of Internet users and server providers has occurred. The number of Internet users has been growing geometrically since the early 1900's. This growth calls for capacity planning, performance, and management studies to properly handle the Internet traffic with the ultimate goal being to speed up users' response time, or increase their file transfer throughout. Some particular file serving applications that have been receiving particular attention are the World Wide Web (WWW) and the File Transfer Protocol (FTP). One problem to be solved is how to serve the increasing number of users and their work load demands within acceptable users' performance criteria.
One solution is to make the server hardware run faster, but this is expensive. A cheaper solution is to provide a cluster of identical parallel servers to accommodate the large transaction rates of the requests generated by the users (the number of servers being dependent on these rates). The servers share the data and the network address; to the users, these servers appear as a single node. This solution, however, requires the assignment of each request to the right server. This arrangement means that new techniques to balance the load among the servers are needed. Special attention has been made to the case where the clients are only reading information from servers, such as for example, Web servers. The load balancing of the servers means that the servers should be as evenly loaded as possible at any given time. It is important to avoid assigning requests to a server that is busier than another one. This rule reduces unnecessary queuing time and thus will not increase the user's response time. It will also reduce congestion at the servers and thus avoid any resource allocation problems that may arise.
Mechanisms presently available for load balancing the servers include the following schemes: (1) round robin; (2) forward the request to the server with the least number of requests in its queue; (3) forward the request to the server with the fastest response time; and (4) use a server agent to determine the actual load on each server.
The knowledge of the load at each server at any decision point is an important element. Techniques (1) and (2) above do not take into account such information, while techniques (3) and (4) do. The latter methods, however, require communication with the servers to obtain the load statistics. This requirement requires specific software to run on the servers and the front-end processor (the load balancing node). Techniques (1) and (2) usually do not work well because the statistical distributions of the work loads generated by the clients are not identical. Using these methods may cause one server to be busier than another. For example, consider the case of two clients and two servers. One client is generating a heavy work load, while the other one is generating a light one. If it so happens that the arrival pattern to the front-end processor is such that the odd numbered requests are from the first client and the even numbered requests are from the second one, then it will be the case that one server will be a lot busier than the other one.
Therefore, it would be advantageous to have an improved method and apparatus for load balancing parallel servers in a distributed data processing system.
The present invention provides a method and apparatus in a distributed data processing system for handling requests. Processing of requests received at a server system is monitored, wherein the server system includes a plurality of servers. A work load is estimated at each of the plurality of servers. The request is forwarded to a server within the plurality of servers having an estimated smallest work load.
The novel features believed characteristic of the invention are set forth in the appended claims. The invention itself, however, as well as a preferred mode of use, further objectives and advantages thereof, will best be understood by reference to the following detailed description of an illustrative embodiment when read in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, wherein:
With reference now to the figures,
In the depicted example, a server system 104 is connected to network 102 along with storage unit 106. Server system 104 typically will contain two or more servers and is also referred to as a "cluster." In addition, clients 108, 110, and 112 also are connected to a network 102. These clients 108, 110, and 112 may be, for example, personal computers or network computers. For purposes of this application, a network computer is any computer, coupled to a network, which receives a program or other application from another computer coupled to the network. In the depicted example, server system 104 provides data, such as boot files, operating system images, and applications to clients 108-112. Clients 108, 110, and 112 are clients to server 104. Distributed data processing system 100 may include additional servers, clients, and other devices not shown. In the depicted example, distributed data processing system 100 is the Internet with network 102 representing a worldwide collection of networks and gateways that use the TCP/IP suite of protocols to communicate with one another. At the heart of the Internet is a backbone of high-speed data communication lines between major nodes or host computers, consisting of thousands of commercial, government, educational, and other computer systems that route data and messages. Of course, distributed data processing system 100 also may be implemented as a number of different types of networks, such as for example, an intranet, a local area network (LAN), or a wide area network (WAN).
Turning now to
Server system 200 in this example includes a router 202, which receives requests from clients. Router 202 is connected to a bus 204. This bus also provides an interconnection for network dispatcher 206. Network dispatcher 206 is also referred to as a "front-end processor". Also within server system 200 are servers 208, 210, 212, and 214. Network dispatcher 206 will receive requests from router 202 and send the requests to a server within server system 200 for processing. Responses to the requests will be routed from the server processing the request back to the client through router 202 in these examples. In accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present invention, a client making a request to a server and server system 200 only sees a single server. Servers 208, 210, 212, and 214 share data received within server system 200, as well as the network address. For example, a request to server system 200 is made to a particular network address, such as an Internet Protocol (IP) address. Router 202 will receive the request and route this request to network dispatcher 206. In turn, network dispatcher 206 will send the request to the appropriate server for processing. This routing of the request to an appropriate server for processing is transparent and is not visible to a client making a request.
The illustration of server system 200 in
Referring to
Data processing system 300 may be a symmetric multiprocessor (SMP) system including a plurality of processors 302 and 304 connected to system bus 306. Alternatively, a single processor system may be employed. Also connected to system bus 306 is memory controller/cache 308, which provides an interface to local memory 309. I/O bus bridge 310 is connected to system bus 306 and provides an interface to I/O bus 312. Memory controller/cache 308 and I/O bus bridge 310 may be integrated as depicted.
Peripheral component interconnect (PCI) bus bridge 314 connected to I/O bus 312 provides an interface to PCI local bus 316. A number of modems may be connected to PCI bus 316. Typical PCI bus implementations will support four PCI expansion slots or add-in connectors. Communications links to network computers 108-112 in
Additional PCI bus bridges 322 and 324 provide interfaces for additional PCI buses 326 and 328, from which additional modems or network adapters may be supported. In this manner, data processing system 300 allows connections to multiple network computers. A memory-mapped graphics adapter 330 and hard disk 332 may also be connected to I/O bus 312 as depicted, either directly or indirectly.
Those of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the hardware depicted in
The data processing system depicted in
The present invention provides a method, apparatus, and computer implemented instructions for balancing the load on a set of servers processing requests generated by end users. In particular, the mechanism of the present invention is especially useful for use with server systems in which individual server within the system have different service rates. In other words, the mechanism of the present invention is useful in systems in which a server processes requests at different rates from other servers. The mechanism of the present invention monitors processing of requests received at a server system. The work load is estimated for each of the servers within the server system. Requests are forwarded to a server having the smallest work load.
With reference now to
With reference now to
The process begins by identifying the time of arrival of this request (step 400). The identification number of the request is obtained (step 402), and the identification number is mapped to a hash table entry index, r (step 404). The request is forwarded to the server with the smallest work load, which is identified as server j in this example (step 406).
Next, the time of arrival of the request is recorded in the hash table entry indexed by r (step 408). The total observed inter-arrival time between consecutive requests at server j is updated (step 410). The total observed inter-arrival time may be updated by calculating the inter-arrival time, say I, from the last request by subtracting the arrival time of the last request forwarded to server j from the arrival time of this request. Then, the inter-arrival time, I, for the new request is added to the total of observed inter-arrival times. This result is saved in the hash table entry indexed by r.
The arrival time of the last request at server j is updated (step 412). The number of active requests at server j is incremented by 1 (step 414). The server number for this request, j, is saved in the hash table entry indexed by r (step 416) with the process terminating thereafter.
Turning next to
The process begins by obtaining the identification number of the request (step 500). The identification number is mapped to a hash table entry index, r (step 502). The server, k, assigned to this request is retrieved from the hash table entry indexed by r (step 504). A determination is made as to whether the data transfer is flowing from the server to a client (step 506). If the data transfer is flowing from the server to a client, the request is forwarded to the specified client (step 508). Otherwise, the request is forwarded to server k (step 510) with the process terminating thereafter.
With reference now to
The process begins by recording the completion time, c, of this request (step 600). The identification number of the request is obtained (step 602), and this identification number is mapped to a hash table entry index, r (step 604). The server, k, is retrieved from the hash table entry indexed by r (step 606). The server is the one that processed this request.
A determination is made as to whether the data flow is from the server to a client (step 608). If the data flow is from a server to the client, the request is forwarded to the specified client (step 610). Otherwise, the request is forwarded to server k (step 612). In either case, the number of active requests at server k is decremented by 1 (step 614). The arrival time of this request is retrieved from the hash table entry indexed by r (step 616). This arrival time is subtracted from the completion time c (step 618). The result of step 618 is the service time, say s. This observed service time, s, is added to the total of observed service times at server k (step 620).
An estimate of the load at server k is calculated by dividing the total of observed service times at server k by the total of observed inter-arrival times at server k (step 622). The server, j, with the smallest work load is identified (step 624) with the process terminating thereafter. If two or more servers have the same work load, choose the server with the smallest number of active requests.
In the case of servers with variable service rates, additional parameters are taken into account. In the session establishment phase, the process is identical to that illustrated for servers with fixed service rates in FIG. 4. The description of
Turning next to
The process begins by obtaining the identification number of the request (step 700). The identification number of the request is mapped to a hash table entry index, r (step 702). From this entry, the size, p, of the data being transferred in this unit of work is obtained (step 704). The server, k, assigned to this request is obtained from the hash table entry indexed by r (step 706). A determination is made as to whether the data transfer is flowing from the server to a client (step 708). If the data flow is from a server to a client, the request is forwarded to the specified client (step 710). Otherwise, the request is forwarded to server k (step 712). In either event, the actual amount of work to be completed by this request is retrieved from the hash table indexed by r (step 714). The actual amount of work to be completed by this request is incremented by p (step 716) and the actual amount of work to be completed is restored in the hash table entry indexed by r (step 718) with the process terminating thereafter.
With reference now to
The process begins by recording the completion time, c, of this request (step 800). The identification number of the request is obtained (step 802), and this identification number is mapped to a hash table entry index, r (step 804). The server, k, that processed this request is retrieved from the hash table entry indexed by r (step 806). A determination is made as to whether the data flow is from a server to a client (step 808). If the data flow is from a server to a client, the request is forwarded to the specified client (step 810). Otherwise, the request is forwarded to server k (step 812). In either event, the number of active requests at server k is decremented by 1 (step 814). The number of completed requests by server k, Nk, is incremented by 1 (step 816). Next, the arrival time of this request is retrieved from the hash table entry indexed by r (step 818). This arrival time is subtracted from the completion time c (step 820). The result is the service time, s. The actual amount of work completed by this request, a, is retrieved from the hash table entry indexed by r (step 822). The actual amount of work completed by server k, Ak, is incremented by a, which represents the actual amount of work completed by server k (step 824). The service rate is added to the total of observed service rates at server k, Sk (step 826). The service rate is determined by dividing a by s in this example. An estimate of the load at server k is calculated (step 828). This estimate is calculated using the following equation:
Thereafter, the server, j, with the smallest work load is then identified (step 830) with the process terminating thereafter. If two or more servers have the same work load, choose the server with the smallest number of active requests.
Thus, the present invention provides an improved mechanism for load balancing workloads for a server system in which different servers may have different service rates. The mechanism involves estimating a load at each server and forwarding a new request to the server with the smallest load. The process of the present invention may be applied to both servers with a fixed service rate and a variable service rate in the manner described above. With a variable service rate, an additional identification of the average service rate of each server is calculated each time a request is completed. In this manner, a new arriving request for a server may be assigned to the right server, which is the one with the smallest load. This mechanism provides a more accurate load balancing system for servers when the goal is to balance loads between servers as evenly as possible.
It is important to note that while the present invention has been described in the context of a fully functioning data processing system, those of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the processes of the present invention are capable of being distributed in the form of a computer readable medium of instructions and a variety of forms and that the present invention applies equally regardless of the particular type of signal bearing media actually used to carry out the distribution. Examples of computer readable media include recordable-type media such a floppy disc, a hard disk drive, a RAM, CD-ROMs, and transmission-type media such as digital and analog communications links.
The description of the present invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description, but is not intended to be exhaustive or limited to the invention in the form disclosed. Many modifications and variations will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art. The embodiment was chosen and described in order to best explain the principles of the invention, the practical application, and to enable others of ordinary skill in the art to understand the invention for various embodiments with various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated.
Patent | Priority | Assignee | Title |
10002141, | Sep 25 2012 | A10 Networks, Inc.; A10 Networks, Inc | Distributed database in software driven networks |
10021174, | Sep 25 2012 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Distributing service sessions |
10027761, | May 03 2013 | A10 Networks, Inc.; A10 Networks, Inc | Facilitating a secure 3 party network session by a network device |
10038693, | May 03 2013 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Facilitating secure network traffic by an application delivery controller |
10044582, | Jan 28 2012 | A10 Networks, Inc | Generating secure name records |
10129122, | Jun 03 2014 | A10 Networks, Inc.; A10 Networks, Inc | User defined objects for network devices |
10178165, | Dec 02 2010 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Distributing application traffic to servers based on dynamic service response time |
10230770, | Dec 02 2013 | A10 Networks, Inc.; A10 Networks, Inc | Network proxy layer for policy-based application proxies |
10243791, | Aug 13 2015 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Automated adjustment of subscriber policies |
10257101, | Mar 31 2014 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Active application response delay time |
10305904, | May 03 2013 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Facilitating secure network traffic by an application delivery controller |
10447775, | Sep 30 2010 | A10 Networks, Inc. | System and method to balance servers based on server load status |
10474653, | Sep 30 2016 | Oracle International Corporation | Flexible in-memory column store placement |
10484465, | Oct 24 2011 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Combining stateless and stateful server load balancing |
10491523, | Sep 25 2012 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Load distribution in data networks |
10516577, | Sep 25 2012 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Graceful scaling in software driven networks |
10581976, | Aug 12 2015 | A10 Networks, Inc | Transmission control of protocol state exchange for dynamic stateful service insertion |
10659354, | Mar 15 2013 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Processing data packets using a policy based network path |
10686683, | May 16 2014 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Distributed system to determine a server's health |
10735267, | Oct 21 2009 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Determining an application delivery server based on geo-location information |
10749904, | Jun 03 2014 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Programming a data network device using user defined scripts with licenses |
10862955, | Sep 25 2012 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Distributing service sessions |
10880400, | Jun 03 2014 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Programming a data network device using user defined scripts |
11005762, | Mar 08 2013 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Application delivery controller and global server load balancer |
11363097, | Jul 13 2005 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and system for dynamically rebalancing client sessions within a cluster of servers connected to a network |
6965930, | Oct 20 2000 | International Business Machines Corporation | Methods, systems and computer program products for workload distribution based on end-to-end quality of service |
7089301, | Aug 11 2000 | MOON GLOW, SERIES 82 OF ALLIED SECURITY TRUST I | System and method for searching peer-to-peer computer networks by selecting a computer based on at least a number of files shared by the computer |
7353276, | Feb 13 2003 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC | Bi-directional affinity |
7380002, | Jun 28 2002 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC | Bi-directional affinity within a load-balancing multi-node network interface |
7430611, | Aug 17 2000 | A10 Networks, Inc | System having a single IP address associated with communication protocol stacks in a cluster of processing systems |
7496653, | Jan 31 2005 | SAP SE | Method, system, and computer program product for providing quality of service guarantees for clients of application servers |
7693050, | Apr 14 2005 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC | Stateless, affinity-preserving load balancing |
7711104, | Mar 31 2004 | AVAYA LLC | Multi-tasking tracking agent |
7711831, | May 22 2001 | International Business Machines Corporation | Methods, systems and computer program products for source address selection |
7770175, | Sep 26 2003 | AVAYA LLC | Method and apparatus for load balancing work on a network of servers based on the probability of being serviced within a service time goal |
7937493, | Aug 14 2003 | Oracle International Corporation | Connection pool use of runtime load balancing service performance advisories |
7949121, | Sep 27 2004 | AVAYA LLC | Method and apparatus for the simultaneous delivery of multiple contacts to an agent |
7953860, | Aug 14 2003 | Oracle International Corporation | Fast reorganization of connections in response to an event in a clustered computing system |
7996458, | Jan 28 2004 | Apple Inc. | Assigning tasks in a distributed system |
8094804, | Sep 26 2003 | AVAYA LLC | Method and apparatus for assessing the status of work waiting for service |
8134916, | Apr 14 2005 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC | Stateless, affinity-preserving load balancing |
8234141, | Sep 27 2004 | AVAYA LLC | Dynamic work assignment strategies based on multiple aspects of agent proficiency |
8250574, | May 24 2007 | NEC Corporation | Virtual machine management via use of table in which virtual machine information is registered on a time basis |
8306212, | Feb 19 2010 | AVAYA LLC | Time-based work assignments in automated contact distribution |
8448180, | Jan 30 2007 | Alibaba Group Holding Limited | Distributed task system and distributed task management method |
8533729, | Jan 30 2007 | ADVANCED NEW TECHNOLOGIES CO , LTD | Distributed task system and distributed task management method |
8584199, | Oct 17 2006 | A10 Networks, Inc. | System and method to apply a packet routing policy to an application session |
8589944, | Mar 16 2005 | Ricoh Company, LTD | Method and system for task mapping to iteratively improve task assignment in a heterogeneous computing system |
8595791, | Oct 17 2006 | A10 Networks, Inc. | System and method to apply network traffic policy to an application session |
8626890, | Aug 14 2003 | Oracle International Corporation | Connection pool use of runtime load balancing service performance advisories |
8645545, | Nov 24 2010 | International Business Machines Corporation | Balancing the loads of servers in a server farm based on an angle between two vectors |
8676983, | Nov 24 2010 | International Business Machines Corporation | Balancing the loads of servers in a server farm based on an angle between two vectors |
8700726, | Dec 15 2009 | Veritas Technologies LLC | Storage replication systems and methods |
8738412, | Jul 13 2004 | AVAYA LLC | Method and apparatus for supporting individualized selection rules for resource allocation |
8751274, | Sep 26 2003 | AVAYA LLC | Method and apparatus for assessing the status of work waiting for service |
8782221, | Jul 05 2012 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Method to allocate buffer for TCP proxy session based on dynamic network conditions |
8799918, | Sep 11 2006 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC | Dynamic network load balancing using roundtrip heuristic |
8881167, | Apr 28 2008 | International Business Machines Corporation | Load balancing in network based telephony applications |
8891747, | Sep 26 2003 | AVAYA LLC | Method and apparatus for assessing the status of work waiting for service |
8897154, | Oct 24 2011 | A10 Networks, Inc | Combining stateless and stateful server load balancing |
8909782, | Jul 13 2005 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and system for dynamically rebalancing client sessions within a cluster of servers connected to a network |
8977749, | Jul 05 2012 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Allocating buffer for TCP proxy session based on dynamic network conditions |
9015227, | Sep 08 2008 | British Telecommunications public limited company | Distributed data processing system |
9025761, | Sep 26 2003 | AVAYA LLC | Method and apparatus for assessing the status of work waiting for service |
9071608, | Apr 28 2008 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for load balancing in network based telephony application |
9094364, | Dec 23 2011 | A10 Networks, Inc | Methods to manage services over a service gateway |
9106561, | Dec 15 2012 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Configuration of a virtual service network |
9154584, | Jul 05 2012 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Allocating buffer for TCP proxy session based on dynamic network conditions |
9215275, | Sep 30 2010 | A10 Networks, Inc | System and method to balance servers based on server load status |
9219751, | Oct 17 2006 | A10 Networks, Inc | System and method to apply forwarding policy to an application session |
9253152, | Oct 17 2006 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Applying a packet routing policy to an application session |
9270705, | Oct 17 2006 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Applying security policy to an application session |
9270774, | Oct 24 2011 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Combining stateless and stateful server load balancing |
9338225, | Dec 06 2012 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Forwarding policies on a virtual service network |
9386088, | Nov 29 2011 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Accelerating service processing using fast path TCP |
9497201, | Oct 17 2006 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Applying security policy to an application session |
9531846, | Jan 23 2013 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Reducing buffer usage for TCP proxy session based on delayed acknowledgement |
9544364, | Dec 06 2012 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Forwarding policies on a virtual service network |
9602442, | Jul 05 2012 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Allocating buffer for TCP proxy session based on dynamic network conditions |
9609052, | Dec 02 2010 | A10 Networks, Inc | Distributing application traffic to servers based on dynamic service response time |
9705800, | Sep 25 2012 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Load distribution in data networks |
9794332, | Apr 28 2008 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for load balancing in network based telephony application |
9843484, | Sep 25 2012 | A10 Networks, Inc | Graceful scaling in software driven networks |
9900252, | Mar 08 2013 | A10 Networks, Inc.; A10 Networks, Inc | Application delivery controller and global server load balancer |
9906422, | May 16 2014 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Distributed system to determine a server's health |
9906591, | Oct 24 2011 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Combining stateless and stateful server load balancing |
9917890, | Jul 13 2005 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and system for dynamically rebalancing client sessions within a cluster of servers connected to a network |
9942152, | Mar 25 2014 | A10 Networks, Inc.; A10 Networks, Inc | Forwarding data packets using a service-based forwarding policy |
9942162, | Mar 31 2014 | A10 Networks, Inc.; A10 Networks, Inc | Active application response delay time |
9960967, | Oct 21 2009 | A10 Networks, Inc.; A10 Networks, Inc | Determining an application delivery server based on geo-location information |
9961135, | Sep 30 2010 | A10 Networks, Inc. | System and method to balance servers based on server load status |
9961136, | Dec 02 2010 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Distributing application traffic to servers based on dynamic service response time |
9979801, | Dec 23 2011 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Methods to manage services over a service gateway |
9986061, | Jun 03 2014 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Programming a data network device using user defined scripts |
9992107, | Mar 15 2013 | A10 Networks, Inc | Processing data packets using a policy based network path |
9992229, | Jun 03 2014 | A10 Networks, Inc. | Programming a data network device using user defined scripts with licenses |
RE47296, | Feb 21 2006 | A10 Networks, Inc. | System and method for an adaptive TCP SYN cookie with time validation |
Patent | Priority | Assignee | Title |
5053950, | Dec 19 1986 | Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation | Multiprocessor system and a method of load balancing thereof |
5241677, | Dec 19 1986 | Nippon Telepgraph and Telehone Corporation | Multiprocessor system and a method of load balancing thereof |
5539883, | Oct 31 1991 | International Business Machines Corporation | Load balancing of network by maintaining in each computer information regarding current load on the computer and load on some other computers in the network |
5606693, | Jun 14 1994 | International Business Machines Corporation | Distributed database management over a network |
5745694, | Aug 30 1994 | Juniper Networks, Inc | Network resource reservation with admission and link control functions separated for expandability and high-speed operation |
5774660, | Aug 05 1996 | RESONATE INC | World-wide-web server with delayed resource-binding for resource-based load balancing on a distributed resource multi-node network |
5774668, | Jun 07 1995 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC | System for on-line service in which gateway computer uses service map which includes loading condition of servers broadcasted by application servers for load balancing |
5819045, | Dec 29 1995 | Intel Corporation | Method for determining a networking capability index for each of a plurality of networked computers and load balancing the computer network using the networking capability indices |
5864535, | Sep 18 1996 | International Business Machines Corporation | Network server having dynamic load balancing of messages in both inbound and outbound directions |
5867706, | Dec 19 1996 | International Business Machines Corp. | Method of load balancing across the processors of a server |
5872930, | Jul 11 1996 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC | Load balancing between E-mail servers within a local area network |
5915095, | Aug 08 1995 | RPX Corporation | Method and apparatus for balancing processing requests among a plurality of servers based on measurable characteristics off network node and common application |
6138159, | Jun 11 1998 | Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP | Load direction mechanism |
6141759, | Dec 10 1997 | BMC SOFTWARE, INC | System and architecture for distributing, monitoring, and managing information requests on a computer network |
6223205, | Oct 20 1997 | Boston University; Massachusetts Institute of Technology | Method and apparatus for assigning tasks in a distributed server system |
6233607, | Apr 01 1999 | COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC | Modular storage server architecture with dynamic data management |
6279001, | May 29 1998 | R2 SOLUTIONS LLC | Web service |
6314463, | May 29 1998 | R2 SOLUTIONS LLC | Method and system for measuring queue length and delay |
6317786, | May 29 1998 | R2 SOLUTIONS LLC | Web service |
6317808, | Mar 26 1999 | HANGER SOLUTIONS, LLC | Data storage system and method of routing or assigning disk write requests among a set of disks using weighted available disk space values |
Executed on | Assignor | Assignee | Conveyance | Frame | Reel | Doc |
Nov 12 1999 | BOURNAS, REDHA M | IBM Corporation | ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS | 010419 | /0864 | |
Nov 12 1999 | BOURNAS, REDHA M | International Business Machines Corporation | CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT TO CORRECT THE NAME OF ASSIGNEE IBM CORPORATION PREVIOUSLY RECORDED ON REEL 010419 FRAME 0864 ASSIGNOR S HEREBY CONFIRMS THE CORRECT NAME OF ASSIGNEE IS INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION | 036537 | /0763 | |
Nov 15 1999 | International Business Machines Corporation | (assignment on the face of the patent) | / |
Date | Maintenance Fee Events |
Jun 21 2004 | ASPN: Payor Number Assigned. |
Sep 19 2007 | M1551: Payment of Maintenance Fee, 4th Year, Large Entity. |
Oct 26 2011 | M1552: Payment of Maintenance Fee, 8th Year, Large Entity. |
Sep 30 2015 | M1553: Payment of Maintenance Fee, 12th Year, Large Entity. |
Date | Maintenance Schedule |
Jun 08 2007 | 4 years fee payment window open |
Dec 08 2007 | 6 months grace period start (w surcharge) |
Jun 08 2008 | patent expiry (for year 4) |
Jun 08 2010 | 2 years to revive unintentionally abandoned end. (for year 4) |
Jun 08 2011 | 8 years fee payment window open |
Dec 08 2011 | 6 months grace period start (w surcharge) |
Jun 08 2012 | patent expiry (for year 8) |
Jun 08 2014 | 2 years to revive unintentionally abandoned end. (for year 8) |
Jun 08 2015 | 12 years fee payment window open |
Dec 08 2015 | 6 months grace period start (w surcharge) |
Jun 08 2016 | patent expiry (for year 12) |
Jun 08 2018 | 2 years to revive unintentionally abandoned end. (for year 12) |